CRIMINAL LAW I CASES

Venturina vs. Sandiganbayan Information charged: Crime of Frustrated Qualified SANDIGANBAYAN: Finding Venturina guilty of the lesser offense ofG.R. No. 78038 Jan. 18, 1991 Theft defined under Article 310 of the Penal Code. simple theft at the attempted stage.  Venturina was a trackman of PNR and under the SUPREME COURT: The Sandiganbayan did not err in findings that supervision of Engr. Pantaleon, Jr. Venturina was in conspiracy with the other accused in the crime ofISSUE: W/N the evidence  Engr. went on a mission, Venturina and Habalo did not simple theft.presented by the prosecution join. 1. Conspiracy is the common design to commit a felony.before the Sandiganbayann has  Meanwhile, Marinay, PNR Security Investigating All those who in one way or another helped andestablished the guilt of the Officer, was instructed to San Rafael Bulacan to look into cooperated in the consummation of the crime arepetitioner beyond reasonable reports about certain persons dismantling and cutting rails considered as co-principals.doubt? of PNR abandoned lines in the area. 2. The intent to gain is presumed from all furtive taking  When Manrinay and company arrived, the found three of useful property appertaining to another unless persons with acetylene torch, cutting rails and I-beam of special circumstances disclose a different motivation the abandoned PNR railroad. on the perpetrator’s part.  The 3 men were identified, Venturina, Lolito Magan and This Court is convinced that Venturina was caught red-handed in the Renato Rojo, non-PNR emplyees. very act of attempting to steal government property. Were it not for the  Marinay asked about their activity in the vicinity, timely intervention of alert PNR security agents, then Venturina and his Venturina told that he was instructed by team leader to co-conspirators would have succeeded in loading the cut rails on a cut the rails bringing them in Caloocan. waiting truck and disposed of the for their personal benefit.  Venturina also showed a handwritten authority purportedly signed by Engr. Pantaleon.  Marinay bought the 3 to the PC headquarters and otw, they saw Antonio Tebajia, admitted ownership to the torch and all of them were taken to the PC headquarters.Valenzuela vs. People Information charged and rendered decision: Theft. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT: Convicted petitioners Valenzuela andG.R. No. 160188 June 21, 2007 Petitioner having performed the felonious acts imputed Calderon of the crime Consummated Theft. against him, decision by the CA upholding the existence Petitioners filed Notice of Appeal, but only Valenzuela was of Frustrated Theft. briefed, causing Calderon as abandoned and consequently  No rationale behind the rulings has never been affirmed dimissed.ISSUE: W/N the crime by this Court. Petitioner Valenzuela argues he should be convicted only withconvicted to the Petitioner falls  Petitioner Valenzuela and Calderon were sighted outside Frustrated Theft, since he was never placed in a position tounder consummated or the Super Sale Club, a supermarket within SM complex freely dispose of the articles stolen.attempted theft? along North EDSA by Lorenzo Lago, a security guard, COURT OF APPEALS: Rejected the contention of Valenzuela and who was the manning his post at the open parking area of affirmed its conviction. the supermarket.  Lego saw the petitioner Valenzuela who was wearing ID * Whether under the given facts, the theft should be deemed as with a mark Receiving Dispatching Unit (RDU), hauling consummated or merely frustrated. a push cart with cases of detergent Tide.  Petitioner unload the cases in an open parking space, were SUPREME COURT: We are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Calderon was waiting. the taking by the petitioner was completed in this case. With the intent  After 5 mins, petitioner Valenzuela emerged some more to gain, he acquired physical possession of the stolen detergent for a Tide Utramatic and again unloaded it to the same parking considerable period. area. 1. The Court concluded that under the Revised Penal Code, there  Petitioner Valenzuela then haled a taxi, boarded towards is no crime of frustrated theft. No language, expressly or the open parking space, loaded the cartons of Tide, and impliedly allows that the free disposition of the items stolen is boarded the taxi with Calderon. in any way determinative od whether the crime of theft has been  Since all were eyed by Lago, he stopped the taxi and produced. asked the petitioner for receipt of the merch. Petitioners 2. The Court cannot weight starre decisis on the cases mentioned asked to the driver to go, but Lago fired a warning shot to herein. alert his fellow securities. Petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime Consummated  Petitioners were apprehended. Theft.United States vs. Eduave Information charged and rendered decision: Judgement COURT OF APPEAL:No. 12256 Feb. 6, 1917 of the Court of First Instance of Misamis, accused was 1. We are of opinion that the crime committed would have guilty of Frustrated Murder. been murder if the girl has been killed.ISSUE: W/N the accused should  The motive of the crime: The accused was the querido of Such an attack necessitates the finding that it wasbe convicted of frustrated or the victim’s mother. Accused was incensed at the girl for made treacherously; that that being so the crime wouldattempted murder crime? the reason that she had charged him criminally before have been murder if death resulted. with having raped her and with being the cause of her 2. We are of opinion that the crime was frustrated and not pregnancy. attempted murder.  That one day, the accused rushed upon the victim girl and The crime is not consummated by reason of the intervention of causes suddenly struck her from behind with a sharp bolo, independent of the will of the offender. producing a frightful gash in the lumbar, severing all of He is not stopped by such intervention, still continues until he performs the muscles and tissues on that part. the last act. THEN, that case is clear. Accused is guilty of Frustrated Murder.

People vs. Gutierrez Information charged: Murder, Frustrated Murder, and REGIONAL TRIAL COURT: RTC convicted the accused of murder,G.R. No, 188602 Feb 4, 2010 3 counts of Attempted Murder. frustrated murder, and 3 counts of attempted murder.  Regis, Marcelo, Gallemit, Boneo, Dalit were talking to COURT OF APPEALS: Through the OSG, appellant should be held each other in front of the deceased’s house. liable only for attempted murder not frustrated murder with respect to  They notice the presence of the appellant, he was armed, Dalit, for the inflicted wound was not life-threatening. Testimony of when he was 2 arms length away from them, appellant self-defense cannot be given credence. raised his .45 caliber pistol and shot the deceased Regis. SUPREME COURT: Affirmed the CA ruling that appellant os guilty  Marcelo huddled Regis, others stood up from their seats. of attempted murder, NOT of frustrated murder. No convincing proof  Appellant fired several shots, one hit Dalit’s arm, Dalit that the wound inflicted on Dalit was fatal and would have caused his ran and hid behind a car. death had medical help was not been provided.  Boneo and Gallemit ran up the streets. Affirmed the CA rulings with modifications on the awards of damage.  Appellant stayed at where he first shot and even shouted “Pagnaabutan ko kayo, pagpapatayin ko kayo!”  Dalit, behind a car, sought refuge at BLISS Makati and contacted police.  Medical assistance: Dalit, his wound was dressed. Regis, died.  Accused’s testimony: Self-defensePeople vs. Orita Information charged: Crime of Rape. RTC rendered the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT: Convicted the accused of frustratedG.R. No. 88724 Apr. 3, 1990 decision guilty of the crime. rape.  Complainant was a 19-year old freshman student; SUPREME COURT: We find no cogent reason to depart from the well- Cristina’s classmates brought her home from a party. settled rule that the findings of the fact of the trial court.ISSUE: W/N frustrated rape can  Upon entering her boarding house, somebody held her 1. The victim not only stated she was raped, she testified onbe the crime convicted against and poked a knife to her neck. She recognized the how the rape was committed.the accused? appellant. 2. Interpreting the findings of the medcert are conclusive proof  She pleaded to release her but he ordered to go upstairs of struggle against the force and violence exerted on the victim. with him. His left arm wrapped around her neck, and his right hand poking a balisong to her neck and dragged We are of the opinion that the particular provision on frustrated rape is her upstairs. a DEAD PROVISION.  Upon entering the room, appellant pushed Cristina who We find the evidence sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable hid her head on the wall, appellant undressed himself, doubt of the crime of CONSUMMATED rape. ordered the complainant to take off her clothes. Cristina RTC decision is modified: Accused Lito is guilty beyond reasonable because of fright, followed his commands. doubt of the crime rape.  He ordered her to lie down on the floor and mounted her. Only a portion of his penis entered her as she kept on moving.  Appellant lay down on his back. At this stage, appellant had both his hand on the floor. Complainant thought of escaping. She dashed out to the next room and fled to another and jumped out through a window.  Still naked, she darted to municipal building until a policeman found her naked, sitting on the floor and crying. They rescued her.Perez vs. Court of Appeals Information charged: Attempted rape REGIONAL TRIAL COURT: Rendered judgement finding accusedG.R. No. 143838 May 9, 2002  Mother’s testimony: She was washing clothes outside Perez guilty of the crime of attempted rape. their house, when she heard someone cry for Inay. She COURT OF APPEALS: Affirmed in toto. Echoed the ruling of the peeped into their window and saw her daughter Julita RTC.ISSUE: W/N the acts of accused lying flat pinned down by the accused. Mother rushed SUPREME COURT:constituted attempted rape or inside and accused was hiding under the bed, asked him 1. The medcert found physical injuries in the neck and navelacts of lasciviousness? to come out. She thought of hacking him with bolo, but which could have been caused by blunt force; a force realized she can.t, so she dragged him out. would have been unnecessary IF JULITA CONSENTED  Victim (Julita)’s testimony: She was washing dished, TO THESE ACTS. proceeded to the bedroom to store away their beddings. 2. The Court is not inclined to deviate from the previous Then out of nowhere, accused appeared, embraced her court’s findings that the petitioner, against the will if the held her breast, kissed her lips and neck, placed her hands complainant, performed sexual acts on her. inside her pant and held her private part. Accused However, the records show that the crime committed by the petitioner whispered “Sige na pagbigyan mo nako”, there is when was ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS, not attempted rape. Julita screamed for help. She added that this was not the 1. There is no showing in this case that the petitioner’s sexual first time accused assaulted her. organ had even touched (or inserted) complainant’s vagina  Accused Perez’ testimony: It was consented and he and nor any body part. Julita were already becoming intimate. 2. Acts of appellant constitutes lewd acts against the complainant. 3. Although the information filed against the petitioner was attempted rape, he can be convicted of acts of lasciviousness because the crime of lasciviousness is included in rape. CA decision is modified. Accused Perez is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of acts of lascioviousness.Colinares vs. People Information charged: Frustrated Homicide REGIONAL TRIAL COURT: Finding Arnel guilty beyondG.R. No. 182748 Dec. 13, 2011  Complainant Rufino testified that he and Jesus went out reasonable doubt of frustrated homicide to buy cigarettes when out of nowhere Arnel sneaked Since the maximum probationable imprisonment under the lawISSUE: W/N Arnel acted in self- behind and struck Rufino twice on the head with a huge was only up to six years, Arnel did not qualify for probation.defense when he struck Rufino stone. COURT OF APPEALS: Affirmed the RTC decision.on the head with a stone  Ananias said he was walking he saw Rufino lying by the SUPREME COURT:W/N Arnel is guilty of frustrated roadside so he tried to help but someone struck him. It 1. The lower courts found that Arnel failed to prove the elementhomicide was Arnel that had hit him pala. of unlawful aggression. No one corroborated Arnel’sW/N he may still apply for  Paciano said he saw the whole incident. He sought help testimony. Arnel did not submit any medical certificate toprobation given a finding that and brought them to the Hospital. prove his point that he suffered injuries.Arnel is entitled to conviction for  Arnel’s argument: Self-defense. He invokes that he 2. Main element of attempted or frustrated homicide is thelower offense should be convicted for the lesser crime of attempted accused’s intent to take victim’s life: homicidal intent. Intent to homicide and with reduction of the penalty imposed on kill is inferred from: (a) the means of the offender used (b) the him, thus, he should be entitled to apply for probation nature, (c) location, and (c) number of wounds the accused inflicted on his victim. Arnel struck the victim’s head with ain case the Court metes out a new penalty that makes his huge stone, the blow was forceful, and considering the impactoffense probationable. produced and the location where it was inflicted—the Court is convinced that he intended to kill him. However, the Court is inclined to hold accused guilty of attempted, not frustrated homicide. * When accused intended to kill his victim, use of a deadly weapon, but the victim did not die because of timely medical assistance—the crime is FRSUTRATED * When accused intended to kill his victim, use of a deadly weapon, but the victim did not die because of wounds are not fatal— the crime is only ATTEMPTED * The Court finds Arnel liable only for Attempted Homicide and entitled to the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender. 3. Ordinarily, he no longer be entitled to apply probation, he is having appalled from the judgement of RTC. However, the Court finds Arnel guilty only of the lesser crime of attempted homicide and with this new penalty, it would be but fair to allow him the right to apply for probation upon remand of the case. * The Court explained that he did not have a choice between appeal and probation. The stiff penalty that the RTC imposed on him denied him that choice. Arnel raised issue of correctness of the penalty imposed on him. In a way, Arnel sought from the beginning to bring down the penalty to the level where the law would allow him to apply for probation. * The Court’s finding that Arnel was guilty not of frustrated but of attempted homicide, is an original conviction that FOR THE FIRST TIME imposes on him a probational penalty * How can the Court expect him to feel penitent over a crime which as the Court now finds, he did not commit? The Court partially grants the petition, modifies the decision of CA. The Supreme Court finds Arnel guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted homicide and without prejudice to him applying for probation.Intod vs. Court of Appeals Information charged and rendered decision: RTC and REGIONAL TRIAL COURT: The petitioner Intod is convicted andG.R. No. 103119 October 21, CA both ruled finding the accused guilty of the crime of found guilty of the crime of attempted murder.1992, Attempted Murder COURT OF APPEALS: Affirmed in toto and echoed RTC’s decision.  Accused Intod, together with Tubio, and Daligdig,, went SUPREME COURT: Impossible crimes are recognized in the to Mandaya’s house and asked him to go with them to the Philippines. The impossibility of accomplishing the criminal intent is not house of Palangpangan. merely a defense, but an ACT PENALIZED by itself.  They had a meeting with Dumalagan. Accused told The RTC and CA holding that the petitioner is guilty of attempted Mandaya that he wanted Palangpangan killed because of murder is modified. a land disputed between them. SC hold petitioner guilty of an IMPOSSIBLE CRIME as defined and  He added that Mandaya should accompany the 4 of them penalized in the RPC. otherwise he will also be killed. The Court resolved that the acts executed by Intod is still  Intod and companions are all armed and arrived at criminally liable under Article 4(2). Palangpangan’s house. Mandaya pointed out the room where the target victim is, and the fired at the said room.  It turned out that the target victim was in another city and the house was occupied by her son-in-law and his family.  No one was in the room so no one was hit by the discharge.  Intod’s argument: Since the target victim was not there, there was no crime.